4 Things You Need to Know About the Collapse of Iraq

Tikrit has fallen to rebels. So have Mosul and Fallujah. Baghdad could be next. What happened, and what's next?

While America was busy getting all hot and bothered about an American-for-Taliban prisoner exchange, the nation of Iraq has been collapsing. News broke from Iraq today that militants have seized the town of Tikrit almost without a fight. This comes on the heels of the fall of Mosul earlier this week to the same group—the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). For those without maps, Tikrit lies between Mosul, the second-largest city in the country, and Baghdad, the largest. Samarra could be next, and then the capital will be imperiled. Half a million Iraqis have been displaced since January. This is, no doubt, a historic foreign policy failure.

No one likes to think about Iraq anymore. If we did, people would know terrible things are brewing there and not be shocked by today's events. Now the nation is in crisis, and hundreds of thousands of war-weary people are once again on the front lines of revolution and repression. This time there is no major power to help them keep it together—unless Iran or (less likely) Turkey decides to move in.

Here are four things to consider as the bad news rolls in.

1. U.S. politicians are washing their hands of this—which is bad news for the Iraqi people.

Colin Powell's famous Pottery Barn rule about invasions—"you break it; you buy it"—assumes there are people in D.C. who feel obligated to make good on that promise. These days, there are not. Democrats will say, rightly, that a Republican administration made this mess by invading and mishandling the insurgency that followed. They will say Iraq was doomed to fail and support the Obama administration's choice to pull troops from Iraq. Republicans will point out, rightly, that the Obama administration made a major error by leaving Iraq without a security agreement in place. This left Iraq without vital assistance. As recently as 2011 there was talk of leaving as many as 10,000 troops as training and intelligence assets; that could have helped keep the ISIL in check.

This is the worst situation for inspiring progress from Washington D.C. No one feels responsible, no one feels like salvaging the situation, and everyone can blame someone else. President Bush was willing to risk a new strategy in Iraq during his famous surge there, probably because his legacy was on the line. It worked. But now there's nothing to prompt a bold plan to help Iraq. Intervention is unlikely. The Iraq central government doesn't seem to be a reliable partner. And so the winner is ISIL, which wants to create a theocratic caliphate, much like the one Al Qaeda dreamed of, and now controls wide swatches of Syria and Iraq. The losers are any U.S. personnel who fought and died for Iraq, and even more so, the Iraqis who supported democracy and equal rights in their nation.

2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.

ISIL was founded in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis didn't like their bloodthirsty methods (even Al Qaeda complained against ISIL brutality) and thought the group was made of meddling foreigners. After some notable high ranking deaths, and flashes of political progress, the ISIL drifted into war-torn Syria to fight the regime of Bashar Assad.

ISIL made its terrible mark there, killing hundreds in other rebel groups, seizing territory from government control, and executing those who didn't subscribe to their religious views. This is when Al Qaeda dumped them as a client, but ISIL was growing in clout and attracting a new crop of ambitious, super-religious adherents. They are now the top dog of the militant world.

3. The collapse of Iraq puts ISIS on the map. And they may not like how it feels.

A common enemy is one of the best way for two nations to forge a deeper relationship. The current Iraqi government is close to Iran; Tehran has had hooks in Iraq ever since Saddam fell, and supported insurgents during the U.S. occupation. On Wednesday, Iranian officials "extended Tehran's full support for the Iraqi government and security forces in their fight against the ISIL."

Being top dog is not a good thing. The ISIL will find itself hunted by Iran and its proxies, who are not known for fighting humanely. They can expect a full spectrum of war aimed their way: Warplanes and assassinations, spies and barrel bombs, helicopters and car bombs—the works.

4. This will inspire a Vietnam-esque narrative of failure.

Back in the U.S., the failure of Iraq will color military and political thinking in ways that will leave the nation less prepared for future fights. The lesson could go like this: Invasion only leads to chaos, and counter-insurgency is a dead doctrine because reliable partners are impossible to create within reasonable timelines. Therefore the United States should divorce itself from power politics in the Middle East, ceding it to Iran as America focuses on the tense but comparably stable Pacific Rim.

These ideas are simplistic, and they are dangerous because they take options out of the foreign policy playbook, leaving the United States with few options to stave off future crisis or respond to atrocities. If the U.S. can't intervene or support proxies, it would cede the field to nations that are not shy about using such tactics, like Russia and Iran. If insurgencies are seen as effective against U.S. military might, more will spring up. It would be wiser for the U.S. to study the missteps. Learning from mistakes is how the aviation industry reduces airline crashes. Why should foreign policy be different?

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Popular Mechanics participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.